# MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW SECRETARIAT & ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 1 S.C.R. 76
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-01-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2020
- **Bench:** L. Nageshwara Rao, Hemant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohd-rashid-v-the-director-local-bodies-new-secretariat-ors-34278
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Service Law:
Selection/Recruitment - Advertisement for recruitment on the
posts in question - Challenged before Administrative Tribunal on
the ground that alternative process of direct recruitment could not
have been resorted to without resorting to process of promotion -
Application dismissed by the Tribunal - High Court, in writ petition,
allowed the case of the writ petitioners - Appeal to Supreme Court
by the candidates of direct recruitment - Held: As per Recruitment
Rules, direct recruitment was to be resorted to only if the posts could
not be filled by promotion/deputation quota - The candidates of
direct recruitment have no right to dispute the action of filling up
the posts by way of promotion or deputation - The candidates cannot
claim any right of appointment merely because they had responded
to an advertisement.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The Recruitment Rules providing 50% quota to
be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment and
another 50% by deputation quota failing which by direct
recruitment are being followed by the Municipal Bodies.
[Para 11] [82-B]
2. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment
have no right for appointment merely because at one point of
time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the
appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the
reason that they responded to an advertisement. Even after
 [2020] 1 S.C.R. 76
76
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
77
completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the
merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only
for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. [Para 12]
[82-C-D]
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC
47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567 - followed.
3. Since the selection process has not been completed and
keeping in view the mandate of the Statutory Rules, the appellants
have no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill
up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such
posts are being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is
always open to the Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts
by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion
and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of
recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh.
[Para 13] [83-B-C]
Case Law Reference
[1991] 2 SCR 567
followed
Para 12

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
MOHD. RASHID
v.
THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW SECRETARIAT &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2020 etc.)
JANUARY 15, 2020
[L. NAGESHWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Selection/Recruitment - Advertisement for recruitment on the
posts in question - Challenged before Administrative Tribunal on
the ground that alternative process of direct recruitment could not
have been resorted to without resorting to process of promotion -
Application dismissed by the Tribunal - High Court, in writ petition,
allowed the case of the writ petitioners - Appeal to Supreme Court
by the candidates of direct recruitment - Held: As per Recruitment
Rules, direct recruitment was to be resorted to only if the posts could
not be filled by promotion/deputation quota - The candidates of
direct recruitment have no right to dispute the action of filling up
the posts by way of promotion or deputation - The candidates cannot
claim any right of appointment merely because they had responded
to an advertisement.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The Recruitment Rules providing 50% quota to
be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment and
another 50% by deputation quota failing which by direct
recruitment are being followed by the Municipal Bodies.
[Para 11] [82-B]
2. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment
have no right for appointment merely because at one point of
time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the
appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the
reason that they responded to an advertisement. Even after
 [2020] 1 S.C.R. 76
76
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
77
completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the
merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only
for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. [Para 12]
[82-C-D]
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC
47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567 - followed.
3. Since the selection process has not been completed and
keeping in view the mandate of the Statutory Rules, the appellants
have no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill
up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such
posts are being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is
always open to the Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts
by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion
and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of
recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh.
[Para 13] [83-B-C]
Case Law Reference
[1991] 2 SCR 567
followed
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 136 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5431 of 2016.
With
Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2020.
Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajay Sharma, Tejas Patel,
Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, Ms. Rukhsar Khan, Pankaj Kumar, Gautam
Jha, Advs. for the Appellant.
S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv., Zaid Ali Subzposh, Ajay Bansal,
Praveen Swarup, Ms. Veena Bansal, Gaurav Yadava, Mrs. Archana
Sharma, Hrishikesh Baruah, Ms. Radhika Gupta, Kshitij Paliwal,
Ms. Memha Kaur, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Advs.
for the Respondents.
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW
SECRETARIAT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of
Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector1 are in appeals
before this Court directed against an order passed by the High Court of
Delhi on 1st September, 2016.
2. The candidates who were initially appointed as Lower Division
Clerks and promoted as Upper Division Clerks/Head Clerks invoked
the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal2 challenging
Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 dated 12th September, 2013 whereby, the
respondents set in process to fill up the posts advertised by way of direct
recruitment. The argument was that the Recruitment Regulations for
the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector in
North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations, 20133 contemplate
that the vacancies for the posts in question are to be filled up by promotion
failing which by direct recruitment. It was thus alleged that without
resorting to promotion by convening meeting of the Departmental
Promotion Committee4, the alternative process of direct recruitment
cannot be resorted to. The said Original Application was dismissed by
the Tribunal on 28th May, 2015 by observing that the recruitment process
is not against the constitutional provisions but the promotion must also
not be tempered with. In the writ petition directed against such order,
the High Court held that the respondents have failed to comply with the
Recruitment Rules and that only after the respondents are unable to fill
up the vacancies either by promotion or by transfer or by deputation, the
Department would be entitled to publish the advertisement to fill up the
vacancies. It was also found that no effort has been made to hold DPC
to carry out promotions nor the respondents have explored the possibility
to fill up the vacancies either by transfer or deputation.
3. The advertisement was published to fill up 30 vacancies by
direct recruitment to the posts in question out of which 8 were reserved
for Other Backward Classes, 4 for Scheduled Castes, 2 for Scheduled
Tribes and 16 were meant for General category candidates including 1
1 for short, 'posts in question'
2 for short, 'Tribunal'
3 for short, 'Recruitment Rules'
4 for short, 'DPC'
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
post meant to be filled up by physically handicapped candidate which is
a horizontal reservation.
4. The Recruitment Rules were amended on 17th June, 2013 i.e.
before the advertisement was issued on 12th September, 2013. The
amended Rule reads as under:
5. A perusal of the above Rule shows that 50% of the posts are to
be filled up by promotion. If the posts are not filled up by promotion, the
same are to be filled up by direct recruitment. Similarly, 50% of the
posts are meant to be filled up by deputation. If the deputationists are
not available, the same are to be filled up by direct recruitment.
6. An affidavit dated 7th August, 2019 has been filed on behalf of
North Delhi Municipal Corporation1 as to how after the amendment of
the Rules, the number of posts falling to the promotion quota have been
filled up. The assertions in the affidavit are as under:
"5(i) After notification of new Recruitment Rules dated
17.06.2013, the promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C
(2013) was held as under:
(ii) The promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C (2014)
was held as under :
1.
Name of the Post
Administrative
Officer/Assistant
Assessor and Collector
10.
Method of recruitment whether by direct
recruitment or by promotion or by
deputation/absorption and % of the
vacancies to be filled by various method.
i) 50% by promotion, failing which
by direct recruitment.
ii) 50% by deputation, failing which
by direct recruitment."
5 for short, 'North DMC'

Sanction
Post
in
promotion
quota
Filled
up
Vacant
Filled
up
after
DSC
dated
30.08.2013
Vacant
after DSC
dated
30.08.2013
Total
58
33
25
25
00

Sanction
Post
in
promotion
quota
Filled
up
Vacant
Filled
up
after
DSC
dated
31.01.2014
Vacant
after DSC
dated
31.01.2014
Total
58
48
10
4
06
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW
SECRETARIAT [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
(iii) The promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C (2015)
was held as under :
(iv) The promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C (2016)
was held as under :
(v) The promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C (2017)
was held as under :
(vi) That at present details of Vacancy position of Administrative
Officer/AA&C in all three Corporations under Promotion Quota
as on 01.07.2019 is as under, which is dealt by the North DMC
being Nodal Corporation for promotion for all the three
Corporation:-
Note: A DSC is under process, wherein 94 Section Officers,
Private Secretaries and Translators are being considered for
promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C."
Sanction
Post
in
promotion
quota
Filled
up
Vacant
Filled
up
after
DSC
dated
22.07.2014
Vacant
after DSC
dated
22.07.2014
Total
58
23
35
31
04

Sanction
Post
in
promotion
quota
Filled
up
Vacant
Filled
up
after
DSC
dated
08.07.2015
Vacant
after DSC
dated
08.07.2015
Total
58
34
24
22
02

Sanction
Post
in
promotion
quota
Filled
up
Vacant
Filled
up
after
DSC
dated
08.07.2015
Vacant
after DSC
dated
08.07.2015
Total
68
14
54
38
16
(including 3
SC & 1 ST)
Sanctioned Post
Filled
up
post
Vacant Post
Promotion
Quota
72
54 (including
23 LAC given
by SDMC)
18
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
7. It is also mentioned that seniority list of feeder cadre has not
been finalised on account of pendency of the matter before the Tribunal
and the High Court and that in terms of directions of the High Court,
recommendation of the review DPC has been placed before the High
Court and the matter is pending consideration before the High Court.
8. The said affidavit also gives the details of the manner of posts
falling under the deputation quota. It is mentioned that each of the three
Municipal Corporations deal with the deputation quota at their own level.
However, the vacancies of the North DMC are stated to be as under:
"(vii) Deputation Quota: The posts under deputation quota are
being dealt by the concerned Corporation separately at their own
level, the vacancy position of North DMC is as under:
Note: As per Recruitment Rules North DMC has already invited
applications for fill-up the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C under
deputation quota vide circular dated 06.02.2019 and subsequent
reminders dated 12.07.2019. 11 applications for appointment to
the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C on deputation basis have been
received till date. The last date of receipt of application is
31.08.2019.
The above said table shows that the vacancy to the post of Admn.
Officer/AA&C has been filled up by the department regularly
after notification of new Recruitment Rules dated 17.06.2013."
9. Thus, in respect of 25 vacancies falling to the share of the
North DMC, it is mentioned that there are 21 vacant posts and that
applications have been invited to fill up the deputation quota vide Circular
dated 6th February, 2019. 11 applications have been received though the
last date of the receipt of the applications was 31st August, 2019.
10. In respect of deputation quota in South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, it is mentioned in the separate affidavit that out of 32 posts
falling to the quota of deputationists, 13 posts are vacant as on 1st August,
2019. By a separate affidavit filed on behalf of East Delhi Municipal
North DMC
Sanctioned
Filled
Vacant
25
4
21
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW
SECRETARIAT [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Corporation, it is mentioned that out of 14 sanctioned posts, 5 posts are
falling vacant against the deputation quota.
11. From the above information placed on record, we find that the
Recruitment Rules providing 50% quota to be filled up by promotion
failing which by direct recruitment and another 50% by deputation quota
failing which by direct recruitment are being followed by the Municipal
Bodies.
12. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have
no right for appointment merely because at one point of time the
vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the appellants cannot
claim any right of appointment merely for the reason that they responded
to an advertisement published on 12th September, 2013. Even after
completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list
do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason
that their names appear on the merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union
of India1, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that a candidate seeking
appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an
indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the
appearance of his name in the merit list. This Court held as under:-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are
notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are
found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right
to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily
the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do
not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment
rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or
any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State
has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not
to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the
State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates,
as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be
permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by
this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions
in the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha [(1974)
6 (1991) 3 SCC 47
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
83
3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] ; Neelima
Shangla (Miss) v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986
SCC (L&S) 759] or Jitender Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985)
1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] ."
13. Since the selection process has not been completed and keeping
in view the mandate of the Statutory Rules, we find that the appellants
have no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill up the
posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such posts are
being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is always open to the
Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment
after the posts by way of promotion and/or deputation quota are not
filled up either on the basis of recruitment process already initiated or to
be initiated afresh.
14. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeals.
Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeals dismissed.
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW
SECRETARIAT [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]